Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…a union is a) contract…

And contracts are regulated by law, law each citizen has the right to access.

...and b) a state issue..

To the extent the state writes the contract law; the state may not violate the inalienable rights of its citizens, however, particularly the right to equal protection.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No it's not wrong - not given the notion that 50-60% turnout would be considered successful - even with ACORN almost forcing people to vote..

Not to mention I don't even trust your numbers....

Higher learning centers are brainwashing institutions and the majority are intellectually dishonest...

Their vocal political positions on issues make them moot when it comes to polling or studies...

"No it's not wrong"?




You cite numbers of 90%, 95%, and 99% and yet Prop 8 passed by only about 2.5%.


Your hyperbole doesn't add up.



>>>>

Why don't you cite multiple sources that will back up your claims???

Why don't you explain how 90, 95, 99% demographics can vote to discriminate against same-sex couples, yet the proposition passed by only about 2.5%???

The numbers I provided from the study are much more believable then someone pulling numbers over 90% out of his ass.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

Who ******* cares??

BTW - who cares about such things as liberty, justice, freedom, and protecting citizens against overreaching government?


...................................... I proudly stand and say "I do!"


>>>>

You do realize your opinion is ******* moot??

You can have an opinion all you like, however guess what?? that doesn't mean its constitutional..

The Fourteenth is extremely vague, along with the clauses..

However once again MARRIAGE IS NOT A ******* RIGHT - THEREFORE THE FOURTEENTH SHOULDN'T EVEN APPLY...

When was marriage EVER mentioned in the Bill of Rights??? OH NO IT WASN'T...

Our federal government should have absolutely NOTHING to do with marriage.

If they want to attempt to amend the Constitution than they can go ahead and attempt that, however as it stands today - federal government needs to get the **** out of state rights and focus on being more classical liberal instead of authoritarian twats.

 

[Mr.Nick]

"No it's not wrong"?




You cite numbers of 90%, 95%, and 99% and yet Prop 8 passed by only about 2.5%.


Your hyperbole doesn't add up.



>>>>

Why don't you cite multiple sources that will back up your claims???

Why don't you explain how 90, 95, 99% demographics can vote to discriminate against same-sex couples, yet the proposition passed by only about 2.5%???

The numbers I provided from the study are much more believable then someone pulling numbers over 90% out of his ass.


>>>>

No it's not believable...

I've seen studies published by so called "higher institutions" that imply republicans are retarded racists...

Would you believe that???

Oh of course you would because anyone who goes against the grain and calls bullshit is nothing more than a dissident out to destroy the great world of pseudo-socialism and authoritarian ideas enforced by the progressive establishment...

So why don't you find me a few sources to back your claim????

Of course you cant because progressive target certain communities and individuals when they do their "studies" in order to academically propagate the alleged "laymen" which is the average pissed off progressive digging ditches...

 

[bodecea]

Who ******* cares??

BTW - who cares about such things as liberty, justice, freedom, and protecting citizens against overreaching government?


...................................... I proudly stand and say "I do!"


>>>>

You do realize your opinion is ******* moot??

You can have an opinion all you like, however guess what?? that doesn't mean its constitutional..

The Fourteenth is extremely vague, along with the clauses..

However once again MARRIAGE IS NOT A ******* RIGHT - THEREFORE THE FOURTEENTH SHOULDN'T EVEN APPLY...

When was marriage EVER mentioned in the Bill of Rights??? OH NO IT WASN'T...

Our federal government should have absolutely NOTHING to do with marriage.

If they want to attempt to amend the Constitution than they can go ahead and attempt that, however as it stands today - federal government needs to get the **** out of state rights and focus on being more classical liberal instead of authoritarian twats.

SCOTUS:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

You pouting and ranting doesn't make that any less so.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You do realize your opinion is ******* moot??

Merriam-Webster "Moot" = "open to question or dispute".

Of course my opinion is moot, this is a discussion board. Of course we question and dispute opinions.

Your point?

You can have an opinion all you like, however guess what?? that doesn't mean its constitutional..

Actually my opinion as been supported more as constitutoinal then then your position has.

You are of course free to rant and rave, that facts though speak for themselves.

However once again MARRIAGE IS NOT A ******* RIGHT - THEREFORE THE FOURTEENTH SHOULDN'T EVEN APPLY...

Court after court has disagreed with you.

When was marriage EVER mentioned in the Bill of Rights??? OH NO IT WASN'T...

Are you of the opinion that rights must be specifically enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?

Our federal government should have absolutely NOTHING to do with marriage.

So states can bar interracial marriage with no repercussions even though the 14th Amendment specifically made Due Process and Equal Protection applicable to the States where the concepts had previously only applied to the Federal government through Article IV.

If they want to attempt to amend the Constitution than they can go ahead and attempt that, however as it stands today - federal government needs to get the **** out of state rights and focus on being more classical liberal instead of authoritarian twats.

Sorry to say this but States don't have rights. You might want to read the Constitution, no where does it grant States any rights.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why don't you cite multiple sources that will back up your claims???

Why don't you explain how 90, 95, 99% demographics can vote to discriminate against same-sex couples, yet the proposition passed by only about 2.5%???

The numbers I provided from the study are much more believable then someone pulling numbers over 90% out of his ass.


>>>>

No it's not believable...

I've seen studies published by so called "higher institutions" that imply republicans are retarded racists...

Would you believe that???

Oh of course you would because anyone who goes against the grain and calls bullshit is nothing more than a dissident out to destroy the great world of pseudo-socialism and authoritarian ideas enforced by the progressive establishment...

So why don't you find me a few sources to back your claim????

Of course you cant because progressive target certain communities and individuals when they do their "studies" in order to academically propagate the alleged "laymen" which is the average pissed off progressive digging ditches...

So it's logical to believe that Prop 8 passed by the skin of it's teeth by about 2.5% and yet numbers like 90, 95, and 99% completely made up are more believable.





>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

…a union is a) contract…

And contracts are regulated by law, law each citizen has the right to access.

...and b) a state issue..

To the extent the state writes the contract law; the state may not violate the inalienable rights of its citizens, however, particularly the right to equal protection.

Oh really?

May as argue next a contract has to be equal... Are prenup equal??

Legally a prenup is an oxymoron to marriage in the eyes of the state considering the infinite circumstances a prenup could possess.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Why don't you explain how 90, 95, 99% demographics can vote to discriminate against same-sex couples, yet the proposition passed by only about 2.5%???

The numbers I provided from the study are much more believable then someone pulling numbers over 90% out of his ass.


>>>>

No it's not believable...

I've seen studies published by so called "higher institutions" that imply republicans are retarded racists...

Would you believe that???

Oh of course you would because anyone who goes against the grain and calls bullshit is nothing more than a dissident out to destroy the great world of pseudo-socialism and authoritarian ideas enforced by the progressive establishment...

So why don't you find me a few sources to back your claim????

Of course you cant because progressive target certain communities and individuals when they do their "studies" in order to academically propagate the alleged "laymen" which is the average pissed off progressive digging ditches...

So it's logical to believe that Prop 8 passed by the skin of it's teeth by about 2.5% and yet numbers like 90, 95, and 99% completely made up are more believable.





>>>>

Ok if you feel comfortable with your assertion then cite another source that backs up your original???

You can believe what the **** you'd like - that is the great and depressing part of freedom.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok if you feel comfortable with your assertion then cite another source that backs up your original???

I've no need to cite another source.

I'd bet 90% of blacks are anti-gay, 95% of Latinos are anti-gay, 99% of Muslims are anti-gay, 90% of the elderly are anti-gay...

How about you cite a source to support your numbers?

You can believe what the **** you'd like - that is the great and depressing part of freedom.

And of course you are free to belief that Prop 8 passed with 90+% support.

As a matter of fact - please, Please, PLEASE continue to believe that there is such broad-based support for continued discrimination against same-sex couples.

Don't be shocked though when Same-sex Civil Marriage starts winning at the ballot box because the support for discrimination that was their many years ago has been consistently eroded.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

No it's not believable...

I've seen studies published by so called "higher institutions" that imply republicans are retarded racists...

Would you believe that???

Oh of course you would because anyone who goes against the grain and calls bullshit is nothing more than a dissident out to destroy the great world of pseudo-socialism and authoritarian ideas enforced by the progressive establishment...

So why don't you find me a few sources to back your claim????

Of course you cant because progressive target certain communities and individuals when they do their "studies" in order to academically propagate the alleged "laymen" which is the average pissed off progressive digging ditches...

So it's logical to believe that Prop 8 passed by the skin of it's teeth by about 2.5% and yet numbers like 90, 95, and 99% completely made up are more believable.





>>>>

Ok if you feel comfortable with your assertion then cite another source that backs up your original???

You can believe what the **** you'd like - that is the great and depressing part of freedom.

Prop. 8 Repealed - The Inquirer - Diablo Valley College

California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California's Proposition 8 (Same-Sex Marriage) - The New York Times

More?

 

[del]

People need to get it through their heads that marriage is and never will be a right or a civil liberty...

It absolutely is a civil right as is being proven in Cali right now...

That is one of the dumbest ******* things I have heard...

You may as well say "let the professionals handle it and I will believe them" because you're ignorant to the Constitution...

WTF...

That's why this country is so fucked in the first place..

Why don't you read the constitution and bring me some evidence that supports civil unions or gay marriage??

IMO, If a state wants civil unions I could give a **** either or - states have a Tenth Amendment right to self legislate.

The Fourteenth Amendment could justify about anything from communism in the US to an eye-for-an-eye criminal system.

Equal protection my ass...

Protection from what???

Lynch mobs or those with political views???

put down the pipe, nicky

crack is wack

 

[Mr.Nick]

You do realize your opinion is ******* moot??

Merriam-Webster "Moot" = "open to question or dispute".

Of course my opinion is moot, this is a discussion board. Of course we question and dispute opinions.

Your point?

You can have an opinion all you like, however guess what?? that doesn't mean its constitutional..

Actually my opinion as been supported more as constitutoinal then then your position has.

You are of course free to rant and rave, that facts though speak for themselves.




Court after court has disagreed with you.



Are you of the opinion that rights must be specifically enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?

Our federal government should have absolutely NOTHING to do with marriage.

So states can bar interracial marriage with no repercussions even though the 14th Amendment specifically made Due Process and Equal Protection applicable to the States where the concepts had previously only applied to the Federal government through Article IV.

If they want to attempt to amend the Constitution than they can go ahead and attempt that, however as it stands today - federal government needs to get the **** out of state rights and focus on being more classical liberal instead of authoritarian twats.

Sorry to say this but States don't have rights. You might want to read the Constitution, no where does it grant States any rights.



>>>>

Moot:

of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic

Intellectually dishonest today?

Oh and your bullshit has been supported by a bunch of 60's and 70's anti-American pro-communist hippies that now practice law at the highest levels.

Those who have made it their goal to destroy the United States from the inside out, instead of the outside in...

Why throw bombs when you can just destroy the country academically and judicially???

Every radical from the 60's and 70's figured that out - that's why they're all in law, politics and academics....

The majority are all democrats (communists) too....

Destroying the constitution is just one step of their game..

Their goal is to turn the constitution into Swiss Cheese.... To give the document no meaning by contradicting the document and setting so much precedent that up is down and left is right...

That way authoritarians could rule any which way they would like on an issue and ******* idiots 20 years down the road wouldn't know what to make of it... (if we even last 20 years)...

 

[del]

You do realize your opinion is ******* moot??

Merriam-Webster "Moot" = "open to question or dispute".

Of course my opinion is moot, this is a discussion board. Of course we question and dispute opinions.

Your point?



Actually my opinion as been supported more as constitutoinal then then your position has.

You are of course free to rant and rave, that facts though speak for themselves.




Court after court has disagreed with you.



Are you of the opinion that rights must be specifically enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?



So states can bar interracial marriage with no repercussions even though the 14th Amendment specifically made Due Process and Equal Protection applicable to the States where the concepts had previously only applied to the Federal government through Article IV.

If they want to attempt to amend the Constitution than they can go ahead and attempt that, however as it stands today - federal government needs to get the **** out of state rights and focus on being more classical liberal instead of authoritarian twats.

Sorry to say this but States don't have rights. You might want to read the Constitution, no where does it grant States any rights.



>>>>

Moot:

of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic

Intellectually dishonest today?

Oh and your bullshit has been supported by a bunch of 60's and 70's anti-American pro-communist hippies that now practice law at the highest levels.

Those who have made it their goal to destroy the United States from the inside out, instead of the outside in...

Why throw bombs when you can just destroy the country academically and judicially???

Every radical from the 60's and 70's figured that out - that's why they're all in law, politics and academics....

The majority are all democrats (communists) too....

Destroying the constitution is just one step of their game..

Their goal is to turn the constitution into Swiss Cheese.... To give the document no meaning by contradicting the document and setting so much precedent that up is down and left is right...

That way authoritarians could rule any which way they would like on an issue and ******* idiots 20 years down the road wouldn't know what to make of it... (if we even last 20 years)...

true story

 

[WorldWatcher]

Moot:

of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic

Intellectually dishonest today?

Moot
adj \ˈmüt\
Definition of MOOT
1
a : open to question : debatable b : subjected to discussion : disputed


Moot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Actually no.


>>>>

 

[sfcalifornia]

People need to get it through their heads that marriage is and never will be a right or a civil liberty...

It absolutely is a civil right as is being proven in Cali right now...

That is one of the dumbest ******* things I have heard...

You may as well say "let the professionals handle it and I will believe them" because you're ignorant to the Constitution...

WTF...

That's why this country is so fucked in the first place..

Why don't you read the constitution and bring me some evidence that supports civil unions or gay marriage??

IMO, If a state wants civil unions I could give a **** either or - states have a Tenth Amendment right to self legislate.

The Fourteenth Amendment could justify about anything from communism in the US to an eye-for-an-eye criminal system.

Equal protection my ass...

Protection from what???

Lynch mobs or those with political views???

Well see Mr. Nick, the federal government has to get involved in the marriage contract thing because of things like immigration, IRS tax returns, Social Security benefits, transfer gifts without tax penalty, etc.

So where in the Constitution does it say you get to file a joint tax return when you get married but I don't? Where does it say you should inherit your spouse's SS benefits but I shouldn't?

 

[Mr.Nick]

It absolutely is a civil right as is being proven in Cali right now...

That is one of the dumbest ******* things I have heard...

You may as well say "let the professionals handle it and I will believe them" because you're ignorant to the Constitution...

WTF...

That's why this country is so fucked in the first place..

Why don't you read the constitution and bring me some evidence that supports civil unions or gay marriage??

IMO, If a state wants civil unions I could give a **** either or - states have a Tenth Amendment right to self legislate.

The Fourteenth Amendment could justify about anything from communism in the US to an eye-for-an-eye criminal system.

Equal protection my ass...

Protection from what???

Lynch mobs or those with political views???

Well see Mr. Nick, the federal government has to get involved in the marriage contract thing because of things like immigration, IRS tax returns, Social Security benefits, transfer gifts without tax penalty, etc.

So where in the Constitution does it say you get to file a joint tax return when you get married but I don't? Where does it say you should inherit your spouse's SS benefits but I shouldn't?

They "have to get involved"

Why???

Why should marriage be recognized by the state and especially the federal government anyways??

The federal government certainly has no right to recognize a marriage, I suppose the states can legislate how they wish...

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that even touches on the subject. As a matter of fact one could argue marriage as a religious issue hence the benefits. I truly believe that is why heterosexual couples are covered - because it is a religious First Amendment issue.

Marriage is a sacrament...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Moot:

of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic

Intellectually dishonest today?

Moot
adj \ˈmüt\
Definition of MOOT
1
a : open to question : debatable b : subjected to discussion : disputed


Moot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Actually no.


>>>>

Are you really that ignorant or are you just stubborn??

 

[sfcalifornia]

That is one of the dumbest ******* things I have heard...

You may as well say "let the professionals handle it and I will believe them" because you're ignorant to the Constitution...

WTF...

That's why this country is so fucked in the first place..

Why don't you read the constitution and bring me some evidence that supports civil unions or gay marriage??

IMO, If a state wants civil unions I could give a **** either or - states have a Tenth Amendment right to self legislate.

The Fourteenth Amendment could justify about anything from communism in the US to an eye-for-an-eye criminal system.

Equal protection my ass...

Protection from what???

Lynch mobs or those with political views???

Well see Mr. Nick, the federal government has to get involved in the marriage contract thing because of things like immigration, IRS tax returns, Social Security benefits, transfer gifts without tax penalty, etc.

So where in the Constitution does it say you get to file a joint tax return when you get married but I don't? Where does it say you should inherit your spouse's SS benefits but I shouldn't?

They "have to get involved"

Why???

Why should marriage be recognized by the state and especially the federal government anyways??

The federal government certainly has no right to recognize a marriage, I suppose the states can legislate how they wish...

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that even touches on the subject. As a matter of fact one could argue marriage as a religious issue hence the benefits. I truly believe that is why heterosexual couples are covered - because it is a religious First Amendment issue.

Marriage is a sacrament...

I've got news for you Nick, I don't give a crap about the religious contribution to the marriage contract and neither does the federal government. If it wasn't for immigration, tax and all that, the government wouldn't be involved. You can get married by Catholics, Pagans, Druids, Wiccans, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.... It's all the same to the government. And the government will recognize any ceremonial marriage rite performed by any of these groups....... as long as it's a man and a woman, for right now.

Besides, you're the one yapping about marriage being a contract and all... how the hell do you think immigration would be handled if the federal government didn't get involved? How about income taxes? What do you want, total marriage anarchy? You think things will just "handle themselves"?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Moot:

of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic

Intellectually dishonest today?

Moot
adj \ˈmüt\
Definition of MOOT
1
a : open to question : debatable b : subjected to discussion : disputed


Moot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Actually no.


>>>>

Are you really that ignorant or are you just stubborn??

Did you beat your wife today?


Seems you have a problem (to go along with the chip on your shoulder), I provided a well known dictionary's definition of a word which I used which you seemed to have an issue with, seems pretty intellectually honest to me.


>>>>